Decision: choose and apply the Playbook licensing model

[LaloLalo1999]

Decision

Choose and apply an explicit licensing model for the Agentic Engineering Playbook.

Recommended model

• License original documentation and editorial content under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
• License the website code, build tooling, scripts, and workflow configuration under the MIT License.
• Add a short scope map so contributors and reusers can tell which license applies to each path.

This split matches the repository's two distinct surfaces: a public knowledge corpus intended for attributed reuse and a small software application intended for low-friction reuse.

Why this needs an explicit decision

The repository is public but currently has no repository-wide license. Public visibility permits viewing and forking through GitHub, but it does not provide a general grant to reproduce, distribute, or adapt the work outside those platform terms.

Licensing should only be applied after confirming that Agentic Engineering owns or controls the rights to the material in scope. Once a version is distributed under these licenses, the granted rights cannot simply be withdrawn from that version.

Alternatives considered

1. MIT for the whole repository
   • Simplest to understand and easiest for GitHub to detect.
   • Less tailored to attribution and reuse of a documentation corpus.
2. CC BY-SA 4.0 for documentation + MIT for code
   • Keeps documentation adaptations openly licensed.
   • Adds compatibility obligations that can reduce adoption.
3. Remain unlicensed
   • Preserves maximum control.
   • Conflicts with the Playbook's stated goal of publishing usable open methods and discourages contributions and lawful reuse.

Acceptance criteria

• Confirm the organization owns or controls the rights to all in-scope original content.
• Choose the content license: CC BY 4.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0.
• Choose the software license: MIT or Apache-2.0.
• Add the exact license texts and a path-level scope statement.
• Add attribution guidance and make clear that trademarks and third-party materials are excluded unless stated.
• Update the README, public About/Proof pages, repository metadata, and contribution guidance.
• Verify GitHub's displayed license information and the production documentation after merge.

References

• GitHub: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository
• Creative Commons FAQ: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software
• Creative Commons license chooser guidance: https://creativecommons.org/cc-license-your-work/
• MIT License (OSI): https://opensource.org/license/mit

[blocksorg]

Mention Blocks like a regular teammate with your question or request:

@blocks can you add technical details to this issue?
@blocks make the following changes ...
@blocks create an issue from what was mentioned in the following comment ...
@blocks explain the following code ...
@blocks are there any security or performance concerns?

Run @blocks /help for more information.

Workspace settings | Disable this message

[LaloLalo1999]

Repository governance and licensing disclosure are prepared in draft PR #6: #6. The PR intentionally does not add license texts; this issue remains the required decision gate.